Legal Opinion
Cotton States Mutual Insurance v. Falls
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided December 6, 1966No. 42147, 42148PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Per curiam
1. The defendant insurance company contends that the evidence demanded a verdict finding that no coverage was provided by the policy of insurance under various provisions of the contract. One such contention is that the policy expressly excluded coverage for any automobile, other than that described in the contract, which was “owned by or furnished for regular use” of the insured.
The plaintiffs cite State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bates, 107 Ga. App. 449 (130 SE2d 514), and National-Ben Franklin Ins. Co. v. Prather, 109 Ga. App. 459 (136 SE2d 499), to support their contention that whether…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Norris v. CoffeeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. KellarSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
- Sanders Manufacturing Co. v. Dollar Savings BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Skinner v. BraswellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. BatesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Parris & Son, Inc. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1972
- Cotton States Mutual Insurance v. CrosbySupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
- Ranger Insurance v. Columbus-Muscogee Aviation, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
- Hawkins Iron & Metal Company, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.